I think the article can basically be summed up as "GenAI sychophancy should have a health warning similar to social media". It's a helluva drug to be constantly rewarded and flattered by an algorithm.

I think that's doing the article a disservice. "Some patients prefer the service of AI doctors to real doctors, even though they definitely do get a lot wrong" is what I got out of it.

Personally I think the article spends a lot of time trying to show that AI may be able to improve health outcomes, particulaly for rural patients, but IMHO it doesn't spend nearly enough time talking about the current challenges